It only shares "visual derivatives" of images whose NeuralHash match the NeuralHash of known CSAM (either by being the same image ("perceptually") or a collision).
That to me just sounds like weasel words to avoid having to say that it shares images. Let's not beat about the bush, the "visual derivative" has to be good enough to identify what's going on in it for the manual confirmation.
Are you actually arguing in good faith here at all? Because I can't see how a "visual derivative" that's nevertheless good enough for manual confirmation is any better than the source image?
> Are you actually arguing in good faith here at all?
Are you? Because you just seemed to claim that it could match against innocent pictures of your naked children, but this tells me that you don’t understand that this system looks for known pictures, not for something that looks like naked children.
Edit: if you do, apologies, but then I’d say that Apple has suggested that it’s a low resolution version of the picture. This should be contrasted with server side scanning, where the server accesses all pictures fully.
Are you actually arguing in good faith here at all? Because I can't see how a "visual derivative" that's nevertheless good enough for manual confirmation is any better than the source image?